Nom de Forum
Member
In addition to the link Jeff White posted everyone should take a look at page 77 in the September 2015 American Rifleman.
John Moses Browning vs. Eugene Stoner
- Thread starter Justin
- Start date
- Status
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,249
It is certainly semantics, no argument there. But is has found it's way into our firearm vernacular.
And I have no investment in defending it or interest in debating it's merits. I'll surrender that ground to the boys at ARF.com
One of the best subject, lately.
I do believe that Mr. Browning undestood quite right and early the usage and potencial capacity of the gases during and after burning.
Allowing him to develop many firearms in differents calibers according his orders/request and ingenuity.
On Mr. Stoner I am not able to make a great imput about him since I have not in deep. However, one remarkable point between other is the usage of light material for his designs.
Henry.
I do believe that Mr. Browning undestood quite right and early the usage and potencial capacity of the gases during and after burning.
Allowing him to develop many firearms in differents calibers according his orders/request and ingenuity.
On Mr. Stoner I am not able to make a great imput about him since I have not in deep. However, one remarkable point between other is the usage of light material for his designs.
Henry.
zb338
Member
Stoner was one smart guy. John Browning was
a goldarn super genius.
Zeke
a goldarn super genius.
Zeke
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Stoners design allowed the bolt to engage directly to the barrel, thus cutting out the middle man (the receiver). I think that design was revolutionary and took some thinking on his part."
...and yet again people completely forget about the massive (as in, almost the entire idea) contributions of one Melvin Johnson, of Johnson Rifle fame, specifically to one Eugene Stoner during his assault/sporting rifle development project. It was veritably a joint venture, for which Johnson gets almost no modern credit (sort of like all the other schmoes on Kalashnikov's design team that never got historic recognition, though possibly nice apartments). The multi-lug bolt was entirely his idea (the weirdo gas system since copied by exactly no other designs was all Stoner, though)
"Remington model 8 w/detachable 15rd mag - rifle..."
Billy Shears is right; a long-recoil action (Model 8 as well as the A5) is a loathsome option when dealing with medium or weaker strength cartridges with very short recoil impulses. There is no reason to keep the breech locked for so long, especially when it means you have so much moving mass to deal with. Now, in a heavy 50BMG like the GM6 Lynx, with a very long pressure duration and massive recoil inertia, you need a heavy mass with a long length of travel to soak up that energy --but it isn't needed for a lower power gun. But in Browning's day, action timing was still an evolving science (see the Breda 30) and the long-recoil setup made for a very safe, reliable, and adaptable design (if a bit rough on the shoulder)
Browning was brilliant at the three types of weapons which dominated his era; manually-operated long arms (O/U, Winchesters), handguns (1903, 1911, portions of the Hi Power), and heavy/light machineguns (1885, 1919, BAR). He was not nearly as prolific at autoloading rifles. I suspect this was not so much due to any lack of genius, as a decided lack of appreciation or inspiration for such items in his day. The ZH29 and Garand were very cutting edge technology, from an entirely new generation of inventors, and were (obviously) only in the earliest stages of development by the time Browning's health was failing. The 'gun technology infrastructure' in existence for Browning to build upon was largely that of massive Maxim/Schwarzelose sideplate machine guns, which were more tractor than gun. Much like early engines and other machines, these relied on large, complex, heavy, large (again), and inefficient methods of locking and manipulating the breech. Modularity and multi-role parts were an unknown. Levers, cams, cogs, toggles, and gears were "hip," the more the better.
In that respect, Browning's designs were often glaringly simple for the time. But compared to the advances of the next generation of designers, they were still far too unrefined to compete (with the exception of the side-plate designs, which were both very modular and efficient, while not sacrificing the reliability of stalwart competition like the Vickers, few of his lasting contributions still stand out amongst the field of modern options, which is hardly unexpected). The M2, 1911, Superposed, M37, and A5 are still made, which is testament to their objective sufficiency as excellent weapons, but aside from maybe the M2 (which has had very compelling competition from Soviet-bloc 12.5 guns for decades that Americans are simply unaware of in their praises of its absolute superiority) these platforms have gradually become supplanted by newer designs that are improved in various ways (cost, complexity, weight, ease of handling, ergonomics, etc.)
"Wouldn't that be cool! A modernized BAR, firing 7.62 NATO, lighter weight, higher rate of fire. Who wouldn't want one!"
It's actually called an FND, or possibly an MAG58. Both are massive improvements on the very concept of the BAR, which while a new idea for a staid US military, was based on requirements borne of very flawed reasoning. Way too heavy/powerful for real mobile use like a battle (let alone assault) rifle, way too small a magazine capacity for efficient fire volume, and lack of a removable barrel precluded its ability to provide any kind of sustained fire. The semi-auto version made the gun even more poorly suited to the obvious LMG role the gun was a fit for. After version 5.0 or whatever they got up to, they eventually had a pistol-gripped machinegun with a rate reducer, replaceable barrel (with the bipod mounted to the gas tube), with dust-protection measures, and in the new NATO standard 308 chambering. FNH called this product the FND, and there were even experiments by the Swedes with a belt-fed conversion (since capacity was still very lacking, though its FAL mags were common to the much lighter rifles that were unable to deliver sustained full auto volume fire). Modernize the overall receiver layout and make it belt fed and you start getting close to what the MAG58 was.
I've always found it funny how much we Americans was poetic about the BAR. Seemed like everyone always said "granddaddy said it was the greatest," even though it was constantly being revised in the hopes of improvement, and was replaced almost immediately when something else came along (even something as lousy as the M60), never to be seen again for the most part. Now that I have my very own FND-A1 parts kit, I can see why. These guns are absolute tanks. The weight and size of the receiver is up there with the even more impractical 1st gen LMG's like the Hotchkiss Portative (only four years older), only more complicated. The operating parts themselves are absolutely enormous compared to what we are used to seeing for a 30-06-class cartridge gun; the bolt assembly is over six inches long! Receiver is about 2" wide and about a foot and a half, before you stick a barrel or stock on it. The BAR had elegant lines (when seen from the side) but it handles like a 5:4 scale rifle; it's just too big in every way, especially for the role it was intended (mobile infantry, as opposed to individual supporting machine gunner). I can see why the Madsen got as many customers as it did, despite the odd appearance (until the German recoil guns came on)
TCB
...and yet again people completely forget about the massive (as in, almost the entire idea) contributions of one Melvin Johnson, of Johnson Rifle fame, specifically to one Eugene Stoner during his assault/sporting rifle development project. It was veritably a joint venture, for which Johnson gets almost no modern credit (sort of like all the other schmoes on Kalashnikov's design team that never got historic recognition, though possibly nice apartments). The multi-lug bolt was entirely his idea (the weirdo gas system since copied by exactly no other designs was all Stoner, though)
"Remington model 8 w/detachable 15rd mag - rifle..."
Billy Shears is right; a long-recoil action (Model 8 as well as the A5) is a loathsome option when dealing with medium or weaker strength cartridges with very short recoil impulses. There is no reason to keep the breech locked for so long, especially when it means you have so much moving mass to deal with. Now, in a heavy 50BMG like the GM6 Lynx, with a very long pressure duration and massive recoil inertia, you need a heavy mass with a long length of travel to soak up that energy --but it isn't needed for a lower power gun. But in Browning's day, action timing was still an evolving science (see the Breda 30) and the long-recoil setup made for a very safe, reliable, and adaptable design (if a bit rough on the shoulder)
Browning was brilliant at the three types of weapons which dominated his era; manually-operated long arms (O/U, Winchesters), handguns (1903, 1911, portions of the Hi Power), and heavy/light machineguns (1885, 1919, BAR). He was not nearly as prolific at autoloading rifles. I suspect this was not so much due to any lack of genius, as a decided lack of appreciation or inspiration for such items in his day. The ZH29 and Garand were very cutting edge technology, from an entirely new generation of inventors, and were (obviously) only in the earliest stages of development by the time Browning's health was failing. The 'gun technology infrastructure' in existence for Browning to build upon was largely that of massive Maxim/Schwarzelose sideplate machine guns, which were more tractor than gun. Much like early engines and other machines, these relied on large, complex, heavy, large (again), and inefficient methods of locking and manipulating the breech. Modularity and multi-role parts were an unknown. Levers, cams, cogs, toggles, and gears were "hip," the more the better.
In that respect, Browning's designs were often glaringly simple for the time. But compared to the advances of the next generation of designers, they were still far too unrefined to compete (with the exception of the side-plate designs, which were both very modular and efficient, while not sacrificing the reliability of stalwart competition like the Vickers, few of his lasting contributions still stand out amongst the field of modern options, which is hardly unexpected). The M2, 1911, Superposed, M37, and A5 are still made, which is testament to their objective sufficiency as excellent weapons, but aside from maybe the M2 (which has had very compelling competition from Soviet-bloc 12.5 guns for decades that Americans are simply unaware of in their praises of its absolute superiority) these platforms have gradually become supplanted by newer designs that are improved in various ways (cost, complexity, weight, ease of handling, ergonomics, etc.)
"Wouldn't that be cool! A modernized BAR, firing 7.62 NATO, lighter weight, higher rate of fire. Who wouldn't want one!"
It's actually called an FND, or possibly an MAG58. Both are massive improvements on the very concept of the BAR, which while a new idea for a staid US military, was based on requirements borne of very flawed reasoning. Way too heavy/powerful for real mobile use like a battle (let alone assault) rifle, way too small a magazine capacity for efficient fire volume, and lack of a removable barrel precluded its ability to provide any kind of sustained fire. The semi-auto version made the gun even more poorly suited to the obvious LMG role the gun was a fit for. After version 5.0 or whatever they got up to, they eventually had a pistol-gripped machinegun with a rate reducer, replaceable barrel (with the bipod mounted to the gas tube), with dust-protection measures, and in the new NATO standard 308 chambering. FNH called this product the FND, and there were even experiments by the Swedes with a belt-fed conversion (since capacity was still very lacking, though its FAL mags were common to the much lighter rifles that were unable to deliver sustained full auto volume fire). Modernize the overall receiver layout and make it belt fed and you start getting close to what the MAG58 was.
I've always found it funny how much we Americans was poetic about the BAR. Seemed like everyone always said "granddaddy said it was the greatest," even though it was constantly being revised in the hopes of improvement, and was replaced almost immediately when something else came along (even something as lousy as the M60), never to be seen again for the most part. Now that I have my very own FND-A1 parts kit, I can see why. These guns are absolute tanks. The weight and size of the receiver is up there with the even more impractical 1st gen LMG's like the Hotchkiss Portative (only four years older), only more complicated. The operating parts themselves are absolutely enormous compared to what we are used to seeing for a 30-06-class cartridge gun; the bolt assembly is over six inches long! Receiver is about 2" wide and about a foot and a half, before you stick a barrel or stock on it. The BAR had elegant lines (when seen from the side) but it handles like a 5:4 scale rifle; it's just too big in every way, especially for the role it was intended (mobile infantry, as opposed to individual supporting machine gunner). I can see why the Madsen got as many customers as it did, despite the odd appearance (until the German recoil guns came on)
TCB
Attachments
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Someone should tell Colt. The price for their 'new' 1903 pocket pistol is stupid high."
You might want to run some inflation calculators on the original's going rate; I think you may be surprised. Steel milling is still steel milling (it's not like Aluminum milling where modern machining tech lets us cut essentially as fast as we care to pay for electricity), especially if you are starting with a fairly hard forging like Colt probably will be. They also have zero incentive to cut any corners on those guns, since only devotees will be buying anyway, and if the craftsmen have any brains, they'll stretch this job all the way to the end in two years (when the company is sold for the brand/patents and anything requiring assets to operate is jettisoned)
"I'd also point out many of JMB's designs were somewhat clean sheet designs where nothing like it existed."
The 'somewhat' part is important, since it is because of a good thirty years of quality repeater designs that his offerings actually worked. If he'd been born trying to compete with rolling blocks and Spencers, he probably would have ended up like Evans (or Meigs) or the various revolver guys that died broke.
TCB
You might want to run some inflation calculators on the original's going rate; I think you may be surprised. Steel milling is still steel milling (it's not like Aluminum milling where modern machining tech lets us cut essentially as fast as we care to pay for electricity
), especially if you are starting with a fairly hard forging like Colt probably will be. They also have zero incentive to cut any corners on those guns, since only devotees will be buying anyway, and if the craftsmen have any brains, they'll stretch this job all the way to the end in two years (when the company is sold for the brand/patents and anything requiring assets to operate is jettisoned)"I'd also point out many of JMB's designs were somewhat clean sheet designs where nothing like it existed."
The 'somewhat' part is important, since it is because of a good thirty years of quality repeater designs that his offerings actually worked
. If he'd been born trying to compete with rolling blocks and Spencers, he probably would have ended up like Evans (or Meigs) or the various revolver guys that died broke.TCB
Nom de Forum
Member
You certainly are correct that many in the U.S. have little appreciation for Ferdinand von Mannlicher. Ranking him closest to John Moses Browning is one shared by many cognoscente. I really gained an appreciation for Mannlicher after I started shooting an M95. For anyone interested in learning about some of Mannlicher's great designs I recommend "Mannlicher Military Rifles" by Paul S. Scarlata.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
The Czech Vaclav Holek (and brother) was another designer who had an outsized influence (ZB26, 39, ZB37, BREN, BESA, UK59 and I think a belt fed LMG version of the ZB26 well. Could be argued the FAL draws a tenuous lineage also). Apparently developed the prototype in a single year.
TCB
TCB
vaupet
Member
As we all know, JMB trained/formed/coached Dieudonné Saive, who codesigned the FN HP. Saive later designed the fn49. (the design is on par, if not better then the garand imho) even before WWII and further on the FN FAL.
I think one might say, that the modern Scar has something to do with mister JMB.
In small arms, for some decades now, we are talking evolution, not revolution.
JMB was one of the last revolutionairs.
Almost every 9 mm we see today builds on the Browning-Petter system
in my little collection: BHP, Winchester 1892, fn49, sa 22 (truly magnificent) and FAL, many, many hours of great fun.
I think one might say, that the modern Scar has something to do with mister JMB.
In small arms, for some decades now, we are talking evolution, not revolution.
JMB was one of the last revolutionairs.
Almost every 9 mm we see today builds on the Browning-Petter system
in my little collection: BHP, Winchester 1892, fn49, sa 22 (truly magnificent) and FAL, many, many hours of great fun.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
Stoner is a one hit wonder as compared to Browning. Even Stoners one hit has changed so much he'd barely recognize it, partly because it worked so poorly in the beginning of its life.
While possibly true, I was once told that every single firearm Browning presented to the military they adopted into service. I'm sure I can't think of them all but off hand that'd be the 1911, Browning high power, Browning Automatic Rifle, M2 50 cal, M1919, M1895 'potato digger', a water cooled M1917, A5, and even a curtain rod....wait I may be wrong on that last one.
This is like comparing the Beatles to Don McLean.
While possibly true, I was once told that every single firearm Browning presented to the military they adopted into service. I'm sure I can't think of them all but off hand that'd be the 1911, Browning high power, Browning Automatic Rifle, M2 50 cal, M1919, M1895 'potato digger', a water cooled M1917, A5, and even a curtain rod....wait I may be wrong on that last one.
This is like comparing the Beatles to Don McLean.
For a hack Stoner apperas to have done OK by most folks theses days. Yes the very early ARs had issues but that was more a powder issue that anything else.
lysanderxiii
Member
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Look up the M1941"
Or the Dror for that matter (which incorporated elements that made their way into many modern LMGs)
"I think one might say, that the modern Scar has something to do with mister JMB."
Care to explain? Personally, I always thought the AR16 was the "magnum opus" of Stoner's time, though I don't know enough about its development to know if Stoner should get all the credit for the gas & recoil systems, or if it was a collaboration.
TCB
Or the Dror for that matter (which incorporated elements that made their way into many modern LMGs)
"I think one might say, that the modern Scar has something to do with mister JMB."
Care to explain? Personally, I always thought the AR16 was the "magnum opus" of Stoner's time, though I don't know enough about its development to know if Stoner should get all the credit for the gas & recoil systems, or if it was a collaboration.
TCB
Nom de Forum
Member
I don’t think anyone here thinks of Stoner as a hack. What most folks these days are doing O.K. with (AR-15/M-16) is something Robert Fremont and Jim Sullivan designed based on Stoner’s AR-10. The same is true of the Stoner Weapons System that saw only limited use. Stoner is definitely worthy of high praise, but John Moses Browning is a firearms star so bright he makes otherwise outstandingly bright firearms stars like Stoner appear closer to average in brightness.
kBob
Member
The AR16 was a 7.62 NATO gun that was largely imaginary. Yes they made some. Burt Miller once told me the two he used in the dog and pony shows were all that were actually completed. As much as he liked the idea and his involvement in it he said they were brutal to shoot.
He did seem to really love the AR-18 AR-180. There were a number of shorty AR-18s models made up with shortened barrels, op rods, and handguards and either the regular stock or a "wire" type that folded the same,on the left side (correct side I still think ) and a cone type flash suppressor. I once ran across a sad Sterling AR-18 dinged and scared up and it was difficult to turn loose the idea of SBR-ing that puppy into a AR180s or as it was pre 86 an AR18s.
I really like the AR180, after totting an M16A1 three years I bought my first .223 semi auto. I looked at the AR15 and I looked at the AR-180 and bought the AR-180. My biggest moans go out to the Original Armalite team for not making it take AR15 magazines. I did not like the way Sterling botched the hammer and trigger pins......never saw a Howa or Cosa Mesa that had those issues.....being early on the Sterling band wagon I went with center punching the pins and knew folks that staked them in by punching the actual lower right next to the pin before the c clip solution was applied. BTW 37 years since those pins got center punched and they have not moved.
I was disappointed with the New Armalite AR-180 and think it should have been called something else. I liked the Leder though....go figure.
-kBob
He did seem to really love the AR-18 AR-180. There were a number of shorty AR-18s models made up with shortened barrels, op rods, and handguards and either the regular stock or a "wire" type that folded the same,on the left side (correct side I still think ) and a cone type flash suppressor. I once ran across a sad Sterling AR-18 dinged and scared up and it was difficult to turn loose the idea of SBR-ing that puppy into a AR180s or as it was pre 86 an AR18s.
I really like the AR180, after totting an M16A1 three years I bought my first .223 semi auto. I looked at the AR15 and I looked at the AR-180 and bought the AR-180. My biggest moans go out to the Original Armalite team for not making it take AR15 magazines. I did not like the way Sterling botched the hammer and trigger pins......never saw a Howa or Cosa Mesa that had those issues.....being early on the Sterling band wagon I went with center punching the pins and knew folks that staked them in by punching the actual lower right next to the pin before the c clip solution was applied. BTW 37 years since those pins got center punched and they have not moved.
I was disappointed with the New Armalite AR-180 and think it should have been called something else. I liked the Leder though....go figure.
-kBob
lysanderxiii
Member
The Dror is an Israeli made Johnson LMG with a few modifications...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dror_light_machine_gun
Stoner's opus magnum was the Stoner 63A. It came within a hair's breath of being adopted by the USMC in 1967 (ish). Ironically, the major reason given for not adopting it was the USMC didn't think the 5.56mm caliber was going to be effective...
Jim Watson
Member
Mr Browning said that John Pedersen was the best firearms designer he knew.
Mr Pedersen designed some interesting and profitable guns, even working under the limitations of the very broad Browning/Winchester/Colt/FN patents.
Mr Pedersen designed some interesting and profitable guns, even working under the limitations of the very broad Browning/Winchester/Colt/FN patents.
Nom de Forum
Member
Definitely a case of genius being stimulated to find another way when the road is blocked. Can you imagine what Pedersen and Browning might have accomplished if working together? I can. Probably nothing too spectacular because of personality conflict. Clearly Pedersen benefited from the restrictions of the Browning, etc., patents from the standpoint of being innovative. I suspect not being restricted would have resulted in Pedersen designing "Browning type" guns that were often better than guns Browning designed.
Last edited:
Nom de Forum
Member
Perhaps you mean the Stoner 62. Fremont and Sullivan created the 63 from the 62. IMO the Stoner 63 suffered as much from being neither fish nor foul as much as due to caliber. When it needed to behave as a fish it was still to much foul and vice versa.
Let me chime in the early ARs were pure garbage perfectly suitable for getting soldiers who used them killed.
- Status
